[150] When the writ for his re-election was moved, the House gave a deep groan--an unprecedented mark of dislike.
[151] See some interesting observations on Wedderburne in Lord Brougham’s Historical Sketches, vol. i. p. 70–87.--E.
[152] There appears to be no authority for this statement of Walpole’s. Grimaldi, indeed, told Mr. Harris, on the latter acquainting him with his recall, that “he was sure that the moment he mentioned it to the King his Majesty would recall his Ambassador from London, when, of course, no prospect would remain of that accommodation being brought about which his Catholic Majesty had so much at heart.”--(Mr. Harris to Lord Rochford, 13th of January, 1771.)--He also declined to recognise Mr. Harris any longer as Minister, upon the pitiful plea of the absence of his credentials. Probably he at the same time wrote to Prince Masserano desiring him to expect an immediate recall. Far from the King taking such a step, he manifested his satisfaction at the arrangement in a more evident manner than Grimaldi wished, and expressed great satisfaction at the gracious manner in which Prince Masserano had been received at the British Court after signing the declaration.--(Mr. Harris’s Letter, 14th February.--Malmesbury Correspondence, vol. i p. 75–6.)--E.
[153] He was afterwards Secretary of State in 1782, and in the following year concluded the preliminaries of peace with France. Some of his letters, very agreeably written, are published in Lord Malmesbury’s Correspondence. He died in 1786.--E.
[154] The debate is reported by Cavendish, vol. ii. p. 245.--Wedderburne not only voted for the motion, but supported it by a very able speech, which was answered by his colleague Thurlow (the Attorney-General). The best speech against the motion was made by Mr. Fox, who, it may be worth noticing, never altered the strong opinion which he expressed on this, as well as on other occasions, of the incapacity of Mr. Wilkes.--E.
[155] William, the sixth Lord Craven. He had succeeded to the title only in 1769. He died in 1791. His widow married the Margrave of Anspach.--E.
[156] The object of the motion was to repeal the clause which “protects such rights, titles, or claims, under any grants or letters patent from the Crown, as are prosecuted with effect, within a certain time therein (viz., in the Act) limited.” An able defence of Sir James Lowther was made by Lord North, and a still more able defence of the Duke of Portland by Dunning. The correctness of Walpole’s statement of the feelings of the Court is illustrated by the following extract from a letter of the King’s to Lord North: “11th February.--What has passed in the House of Commons this day is a fresh proof that truth, justice, and even honour are constantly to be given up when they relate to Sir James Lowther.”--(MS.)--The King’s indignation, however, was directed against what he conceived to be an encroachment on the prerogative of the Crown, and did not arise from any partiality for Sir James Lowther.--E.